Don't agonize, organize ... that's my mantra. It's certainly better than doing nothing! But, when even your best efforts don't give you the results you were hoping for. Or a situation is completely outrageous, sometimes all you can do is say ... YIKES!

Friday, July 04, 2008

The folks at NARAL should be wiping the egg off their faces about now ... as Obama has just tossed them under his ever-growing bus. (Unfortunately, they aren't -- which is another post for another day.)

Everyone in the world has sent me the link to this AP story about an interview Obama did with Relevant Magazine, a Christian publication, in which he reportedly said that "mental distress" shouldn't qualify as part of the mother's health exception to late-term abortion bans. I quite honestly could not believe this was being reported correctly, so I looked out the original article.

And, sure enough, that's what he says all right.

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate's stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don't believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

I just honestly don't even know what to say. Part of me wants to explore the bloody fucking obvious hypotheticals that make this position totally untenable (e.g. a pregnant woman under such psychological distress that she is a danger to herself and ergo necessarily the fetus), and another part of me just wants to point out how gobsmackingly offensive (and misogynist) this is.

Obama's stated model for Supreme Court justices (Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer), pro-lifers should not expect that Obama will actually appoint any Supreme Court justice who would find any law that restricted abortion in any way to be Constitutional. In other words, there's still literally no reason that any thinking pro-lifer should *vote* for Barack Obama.

But that doesn't mean that Obama should not be lauded for rejecting the extremism and the fanaticism of the worst elements of the Democratic base like NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned Parenthood. It is good to know that whatever Barack personally feels about abortion, he has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised. Hillary Clinton, for one, would never have done anything like this. Her husband vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Act twice and by all accounts Hillary treated the Emily's Listers and NARAL extremists like they were important and respectable people. Barack Obama knows better. Good for him.

Jeff sums up the feelings of a lot of us: "Yes, Barack, you've won an "attaboy" from RedState! You must be so proud. Please note that they're not planning to vote for you. Also, please note that the NARAL extremists (*cough*) and the Emily's Listers were."

Obama's bus isn't growing -- it's the speed bump under it that's increasing in size. If anything, pretty soon he'll be downsizing to a mini-van. You don't need a very big vehicle when the number of people willing to ride it keeps shrinking.